Posted on 07/09/2006 4:41:38 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.
Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.
It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."
Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Various bible translations are really not a major issue in causing division in non-Roman Catholic churches. After all the first great division came when one province of the original 5 provinces of the Church, Rome, broke away from all the Eastern churches, now called Eastern Orthodox.
During the Middle Ages, especially in the late medieval period (after the 13th Century) Roman church authorities suppressed any kind of bible translation...various men were persecuted or killed either for translating or helping translate scripture into the vernacular. It's easier to just tell people what to believe than having them check what you say as an institution, by exactly what the Apostles taught...authoritatively, which is found written down in scripture. In this sense too, the New Testament books have ALWAYS been authoritative, and were not an invention or creation of the Roman Church. The Roman and Eastern(...4/5s of the original church) Churches all RECOGNIZED certain books as authoritative in the 3rd and 4th Century, and there has been no significant disagreement about that since. The Apocryphal books (called "Deuterocanonical" by Rome) were not formally recognized by Rome until the Council of Trent, in the 1550s AFTER nearly half of the European Christians were separated from Rome after they tried to reform the Church in the Reformation.
Throughout the Middle Ages, when the Roman Church was the single wealthiest and most powerful institution in all of Europe (owning 1/4 to 1/3 of all the wealth), various popes and councils changed doctrine...usually just by adding things, not openly rejecting past doctrines. Transubstantiation for example, resting on Aristotle's philosophy, dates only back to the 13th Century when European intellectuals were first introduced to most of Aristotle’s works... Mary's assumption into heaven too, while an old tradition, only became dogma (what one MUST believe to be faithful) 130 years ago.
Currently, and for some 40 years now, since Vatican II, the Roman Church has very conservative leadership--which will not change things very fast, if at all...However as Vatican II itself proves, depending on the times and the leadership large changes can be made in a short period of time...and despite the rhetoric of received doctrine, Roman Catholic doctrines have, can and will change, sometimes quickly.
Like the idea of a written Constitution--which yes some 9 idiots in black robes can (mis)interpret and twist--and get away with (for a while), the final authority of the Word of God is a much more sure place to stand than a humanly led institution, which, like it or not, the Roman Catholic church is. Concentrated power does corrupt...since Rome is not nearly as powerful now as it was 500 years ago, it is not nearly as corrupt, still its doctrines change, especially when it claims authority over and above scripture.
The liberal protestants too have long claimed authority over and above scripture, by arrogant and ungodly scholars--sprouting from Englightenment humanist ("man is the measure of all things" ) thinking. Either liberal or conservative/traditional claims of having more authority than scripture ultimately fail. Such claims by Rome are why Luther and the Protestants were kicked out, or left, in the first place.
This is a period of history, I believe, of a new reformation, where the perverted theology of Man-centeredness (which surprise, surprise, eventually brought perverted persons to be in charge) will be cleansed from the churches. There will be a lot of suffering by the faithful though in the process. God is faithful though, and He will save and protect his true Church, in and of every denomination.
To answer the fallible protestant commentator: the doctrine is grounded in the PRACTICE of the first generations of Christians and this biblical example demonstrates the compatibility of the Church's practice and doctrine with scripture.
Why on earth you are so excited to denigrate the practices of the earliest Christians is beyond me. Tradition was what drove the Church for the first two centuries. The New Testament actually sprung froth from Tradition. You can pretend otherwise if it helps you sleep better. But it does not make your pretense true.
The epistles written to the first generations of Christians—Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, for example—indicates many of their PRACTICEs were anything but perfect. As you said, "You can pretend otherwise if it helps you sleep better. But it does not make your pretense true."
How do you figure that there was no NT for 300 years? The NT was written by the first generation of Yeshua's (Jesus') followers. They were recognized immediately by Yeshua's followers, being quoted as authoritative by the early Church fathers from the very beginning.
The Catholic Church eventually declared that the books of the NT were all the Word of God. Prior to that they were just books that had good teaching in them.
Is that you, Dan Brown?
And what about that "yet so as by fire"? You can't just ignore it, if you believe in scriptural inerrancy.
The last words of Jesus to any person on earth were not about Mary.
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Interestingly, when Christ was saying his last words, they were about spirutual things, not about earthly things, like his instructions to the disciple to take care of his mother at the cross.
In an effort to promote accuracy in these posts please refer to the left wing, heretical Presbyterian church as the PCUSA, all of us in the conservative PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) don't like being wrapped up in the same newspaper.
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
But even better, you must haved missed this passage.
Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Notice that in verse 29 Jesus explicitly calls it fruit of the vine. It is clear that he meant the communion to be symbolic.
Nowhere in the scriptures is transubstantiation indicated. In fact, the Apostle Paul clearly explains what Christ meant:
1Cr 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Somebody who refers to Catholics as "papists" is just the source to consult for an unbiased interpretation of whether or not a scriptural passage supports a Catholic doctrine . . . yep, just where I would go.
Jhn 6:48 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
GREAT question. LOOK HOW JESUS EXPLAINS IT!!!! Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Jhn 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
No, we are not LITERALLY eating the flesh of Christ. Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No cometh to the father but by Me."
1. Christ ascended into heaven. His literal flesh is no longer available to be eaten.
2. Eating of human flesh and blood is condemned.
3. There is NO scripture that teaches that the bread and juice turn into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. We symbolicly partake of his flesh and blood, not literally.
Christ is teaching that we must take totally and completely His teachings and let THEM become our life(verse 63). We remember that commitment to do so every time we partake of the communion and remember His death. That is what Paul was explaining to the Corinthians.
Quite obviously I was referring to his last words prior to his death. Keep on pretending and quibbling. It does not change the fact of Mary's special status.
Dan Brown,
Please read some acurate history of the Church.
The NT was not declared to be so until the 300s.
NO ONE disputes this historial fact.
What planet are you from?
All the meat/flesh/blood stuff is to be ignored, of course.
Jesus did not really mean it - and they finally figured that out 1500 years later.
People were too stupid to figure it out earlier.
You are so clever.
Jesus is as explicit as can be when he insists that we literally eat his flesh and blood:
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye _eat_ the _flesh_ of the Son of man, and _drink_ his _blood_, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso _eateth my flesh_, and _drinketh my blood_, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For _my flesh is meat_ indeed, and _my blood is drink_ indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that _eateth my flesh_, and _drinketh my blood_, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
And, oh by the way, earlier in the same chapter of John, he performs the miracle of loaves and fishes for the crowd in which he made the flesh of fish and bread miraculously multiply. He showed that he could make flesh appear miraculously so that ALL who were hungry could eat their fill. This is followed IMMEDIATELY by the discourse on the Eucharist in which he demands that we eat his flesh and drink his blood.
ChristianCourier.com
What Are Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?
Publish date: February 19, 2002
Author: Wayne Jackson
Article description: What is the difference between the doctrines of “transubstantiation” and “consubstantiation”?
“What is the difference between ‘transubstantiation’ and ‘consubstantiation’?”
The word “transubstantiation” derives from Latin—trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the “Mass,” the “bread and wine” are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same. This doctrine, which has no basis in Scripture, first appeared in the early 9th century A.D., was formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).
Any dogma that attempts to place the “real presence” of the flesh and blood of Christ into the communion components, in a literal sense, is the result of a misunderstanding of the language employed in the Scriptures.
One of the most important skills necessary for the correct interpretation of the Bible is the ability to distinguish between language that is used in a figurative sense versus that which is employed in a literal sense. Human communication abounds with figurative expressions, and a common-sense approach must be taken in the consideration of speech.
One of the fundamental canons in identifying figurative language is this. Normally, a word should be viewed as literal, unless other considerations make it impossible to interpret the term in that light. Determinative factors that are essential to making the proper judgments are these: context, both immediate and remote (i.e., discussion of the same subject in other biblical references), grammar, consistency (the Scriptures do not contradict themselves), common sense (i.e., does a literal interpretation imply an absurdity?).
An appropriate application of these hermeneutic principles will force the serious Bible student to the conclusion that the biblical references to the Lord’s supper as the “body” and “blood” of Christ must be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Consider the following points.
When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.
There is a common figure of speech that is known as metaphor. The metaphor is a dramatic image by which one thing is compared to another, but being represented figuratively as that very thing.
Of the tribal descendants of Judah, Jacob said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gen 49:9)—certainly not literally, but having certain lion-like traits. When Jesus referred to Herod as a “fox” (Lk. 13:31-32), no one understood him to imply that the ruler was a four-legged animal with a bushy tail! Christ once said: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn. 15:5).
Every careful student knows that the Savior employed symbolism by this language. An analogy was being drawn; the language was not to be pressed literally.
The fact that Jesus instructed the disciples to subsequently partake of the Lord’s supper “in remembrance” of him (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) contains the implication that he would not be present physically in the communion celebration.
A favorite “proof-text” that is used frequently in an attempt to establish the “real presence” of Christ in the communion is John 6:53-54. Here Jesus declared:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually.
In verse 54, the terms “eateth” and “drinketh” are both present tense participles, signifying that the disciples were to be eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” at that very time, and continue doing so as a process.
A literal rendition would read: “He who continues eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” (see the translations of Charles B. Williams and Kenneth Wuest). The disciples were not eating and drinking the Savior’s flesh and blood at that moment!
The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life”; yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ’s “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction—the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal.
This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24).
The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech.
With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.